- (1.) CM No. 8727-CII of 2012. Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2041 of 2012. 1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, plaintiff Dev Bhushan Gupta has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said judgment. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit in the year 1990 against proforma respondents No. 3 to 7 as defendants No. 1 to 5. During pendency of the said suit, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein were impleaded as defendants No. 6 and 7 vide order dated 06.05.1996. They were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 09.12.1996. Ultimately the said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999. Separate applications moved by defendant No. 1 and by defendants No. 2 to 4 for setting aside the ex. parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999 were dismissed by common order dated 19.11.2009. IDBI Bank Limited also filed application for being impleaded as party to the suit and for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, being mortgagee of the suit property. However, the said application was also dismissed.
(2.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (defendants No. 6 and 7 in the suit) also filed application on 15.09.2001 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999 alleging that they were never served in the suit. Their address in the suit was also not correct. The had no knowledge of the pendency of the suit.
(3.) Plaintiff-petitioner resisted the application. It was alleged that defendants No. 6 and 7 were rightly proceeded ex parte in the suit. They were aware of order dated 09.12.1996 (whereby they were proceeded ex parte) as well as of ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.04.1999. The were also personally served in the suit Mr. Neeraj Mahashwari, Advocate and Mr. J. K. Maheshwari also appeared on behalf of defendants No. 6 and 7 in the suit by filing memo of appearance, but later on, none appeared for defendants No. 6 and 7 on 09.12.1996 and therefore, they were rightly proceeded ex parte. Defendants No. 6 and 7 were residing at the address given in the plaint at the time of service of summons in the suit. Various other please were also raised.;